If Canon comes out with a 60D replacement that uses the same old 18 mp sensor, I would be surprised. I suspect it will be difficult to generate sales or increase pricing without an improved sensor and better image quality. Canon will need some other substantial improvements and I cannot imagine any that will tempt me. I don't need gps, Wifi, or more fps, or other gimmicks. All I want is better performance starting with the sensor. Improved AF would be next on my list of wants but by itself that would not be enough to entice me into buying a new camera.

Although I am a Canon user for many years, but I really hate to say it we will not see anything good from them, looks like Nikon took the ball and ran with it and Canon is to busy worring about video, I am starting to think that I married the wrong system but we'll see...

Canon is a huge organization capable of doing many things at once. Notice the Nikon A coming out? If you think Canon is wasting their time what is that? Canon produced something that nobody has matched yet and they don't get any credity. A near-APS-C sensor (yeah, nobody likes the aspect ratio except me and two other people I think) in a smallish body with a zoom lens (great quality) for a reasonable price. Sony used a 1" sensor and a truly point and shoot (features and size) body which is great for some and Nikon is sticking with their 1 system and the A.....doesn't impress me.

Canon is obviously working on their technology whether you like video or not. All the R&D will find its way into your precious Canon upgrade soon enough and it will benefit still capture as well as video. Nobody can ignore video any more, although I wish it wasn't such a high priority in a stills body. I haven't seen Nikon or Sony or Olympus or anyone else do something that I find all that stunning and innovative. What is Nikon doing?

fair enough.."what is nikon doing"..they did inspire canon to build the excellent 7d..wich is a"me too"camera 2 full years after d300..yes 7d exceeds d300/300s 2 years.. later

There is no end to this "me too" way of thinking. You think there wasn't anything that compared to the D300 when it came out? You think the 7D was an answer to the D300 with HD video and several more megapixels that were also more advanced megapixels? The 50D was out a year after the D300 and beat it in many ways. Getting into a debate about what feature justifies victory is pointless, but Canon competes on their own terms and they win quite a few of these bouts you're mentioning.

.when canon was on top of the world with their ff cameras they had a great chance to burry nikon but failed to produced the high speed highly responsive ff camera that the canon camp wanted..nikon released the high speed ff d3/d3s..now that canon has the fantastic 1DX ff super camera..it is a great camera..but it's also a "me too" camera..a higher performing d3/d3s/d4 type camera..think about it.nikon d7100 is announced and will be available at the end of this month, and canon will announce their next "me too" camera soon enough to compete with d7100.the new eos m mirrorless camera ..is a "me too" camera inspired by the the sony nex system.canon builds some excellent cameras and they have greater market share than the rest...but they dont innovate like they use too..playing it safe?..ohh d600 was released before the 6d..both stellar cameras....canon has a great chance here to innovate by introducing the killer 7dmk2 with the runored high specs,if they do, it will force nikon to announce their "me too" competitor to 7dm2...have you seen the kickass cameras from fuji?name one camera from canon or nikon that competes with the fujiis?

In May 2000 Canon announced the first affordable consumer DSLR in the form of the D30 with a sticker of around $3,000. Nikon had their D1 for almost twice as much with fewer pixels. The D100 was out in 2002 with a 6MP CCD for $2,000 around the same time as the D60 6MP CMOS was out for the same price (D100 had a plastic fame and D60 was mag). For a few years after that point Nikon's sensors lagged way behind Canon's. They finally caught up. Then the megapixel wars began....not to mention Nikon's focus-point wars. I subscribe to quality-not-quantity and I also think there is such a thing as too much. Simplicity, effectiveness, and quality that matches my shooting (the system, not just the body) is what I'm interested in. There is always back and forth, but to think those are all strictly responses from Nikon and Canon underestimates both companies.

I have never understood the use of the term Megapixel Wars. That term implies some sort of wasteful, non-productive competition. Only a decade or so ago digital cameras had few megapixels and provided poor image quality. I started with a miserable 3 mp camera and my current model has 18 mp and provides better image quality and better low light performance than high quality 35mm film cameras. I don't think these advances qualify as some sort of wasteful war. I also hope these advances are not over.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

No, I am not confused. Canon might have tweaked the sensor a little bit over time but the basic design is the same. So the performance characteristic stays pretty much the same. And I would not be surprised that Canon actually sorted the sensor chips from the same wafer into performance tiers to be used in different product lines, just like CPU chips or graphics chips.

If Canon comes out with a 60D replacement that uses the same old 18 mp sensor, I would be surprised. I suspect it will be difficult to generate sales or increase pricing without an improved sensor and better image quality. Canon will need some other substantial improvements and I cannot imagine any that will tempt me. I don't need gps, Wifi, or more fps, or other gimmicks. All I want is better performance starting with the sensor. Improved AF would be next on my list of wants but by itself that would not be enough to entice me into buying a new camera.

Yup, everything seems different when you talk about sensor performance instead of megapixels and when you talk about competition instead of war.

Seems that everyone tries to uses loaded words rather than logic to prove their points.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I just hope Canon introduces new sensors with better performance. Instead it seems they are interested in "moving into new territory" whatever that means.

I think Canon needs to look clearly at its own business model for sensors. Right now, 'doing everything in house' doesn't seem to be serving them well. Nikon is using three different sources for APS-C sensors, and all of them are arguably outperforming Canon's, as are their two sources for FF sensors. It's hard to see what Canon is gaining by not sourcing externally.

It has to be significantly better than the t4i or the 60D...and it will be. A few tweaks...is a dud. They learnt that with the 60. See how good the IQ is on the G1X ? well, they can do stuff...and they will. I hope.

I have never understood the use of the term Megapixel Wars. That term implies some sort of wasteful, non-productive competition. Only a decade or so ago digital cameras had few megapixels and provided poor image quality. I started with a miserable 3 mp camera and my current model has 18 mp and provides better image quality and better low light performance than high quality 35mm film cameras. I don't think these advances qualify as some sort of wasteful war. I also hope these advances are not over.

The reason many of us refer to them as "war" is similar to the reason there was an HD format "war" between HD DVD and Blu Ray around the same time. There were two ways of thinking and they were like the old saying "there are only two kinds of people in this world" because there were very few people who were on the fence about the issue of more pixels versus better pixels. For a long time improvement came in the form of more pixels. There were very tiny technological advances in the pixels themselves but big manufacturing advances in getting more pixels on a chip. People wanted higher resolutions, but we also really, really wanted better image quality in the form of lower noise/higher useful ISO's (not to mention better dynamic range).

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse. It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way. Notice how many camera models over the last few years had fewer pixels than their previous iteration? The manufacturers were starting to realize consumers were wising up and the Best Buy salesman couldn't simply say (as they very often did) "more megapixels means better image quality." It CAN mean better image quality, but lots of people were figuring out the lens, noise, dynamic range, zoom, and other important considerations for a camera.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

I disagree. Canon has been developing larger pixels on a chip while maintaing the same megapixel count (back-illuminated CMOS), better microlenses, video capability (I don't care much about), on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors, and they've simply waited longer to put those improvements into play in higher resolution chips. They have created new production lines for G1 X chips, 6D, 5D Mark III, EOS M, but I do agree that since the 7D and 60D (and whatever Rebel we're on) the changes haven't been as mind blowing and obvious. They've been using much more precise AF sensors on recent cameras also. I think they're getting ready to getting these advances refined and incorporate better versions into higher megapixel chips.

Yup, everything seems different when you talk about sensor performance instead of megapixels and when you talk about competition instead of war.

Seems that everyone tries to uses loaded words rather than logic to prove their points.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I just hope Canon introduces new sensors with better performance. Instead it seems they are interested in "moving into new territory" whatever that means.

It was by no means a loaded word at the time. People were amazed at the improvement in image quality of these new, affordable cameras. And then, all of a sudden, chips were quickly increasing pixel count while image quality fell. G6 7.1MP, G7 10MP, G9 12.1MP, G10 14.7MP, G11 10MP, G12 12MP, G15 12.1MP.....and these were some of the most modest increases. Many much smallerchips were shooting up to 18MP and the images were awful.

That was the only way they were trying to sell cameras and it was a back and forth we kept hoping would finally quit. Just like most wars, it was dumb and totally missed the point.

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse.

Could you please post some evidence that as pixel counts increased 'the noise got worse and worse' - I have seen nothing to support that, and I collect more information about sensor performance than most. Maybe I've missed something here, so I'd be interested in you posting some hard evidence that separated this statement from a sweeping and mostly false generalisation.

It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way.

I'd be interested in knowing why it seemed that way. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that DSLR's were getting noisier as pixel counts increased. For instance, from DxO:

Three generations of camera, going from 12 through 16 to 24 MP on the same size sensor. The noise performance has got better, not worse.

Notice how many camera models over the last few years had fewer pixels than their previous iteration?

The manufacturers were starting to realize consumers were wising up and the Best Buy salesman couldn't simply say (as they very often did) "more megapixels means better image quality."

Or one could infer the the reduction in pixel count was a reaction to a perceived market desire for lower pixel density, driven in good part by this site, and the result was a loss in image quality.

It CAN mean better image quality, but lots of people were figuring out the lens, noise, dynamic range, zoom, and other important considerations for a camera.

Most of those things are actually improved by higher pixel density. The MTF delivered by a lens is higher with more pixels behind it, increasing pixel count by decreasing pixel size generally increases dynamic range, as above it has little if any effect on noise and it provides more capability for 'digital zoom'.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

I disagree. Canon has been developing larger pixels on a chip while maintaing the same megapixel count (back-illuminated CMOS),

Two points about this. Firstly, back illuminated CMOS does not make pixels larger. Its advantages are about increasing the speed of the microlenses, and thus getting more light to the sensor. Secondly, Canon does not yet produce back-illuminated sensors. It has some in its cameras, but they are all sourced by sony, which is already onto the next thing, stacked back illuminated sonsors. All the major CMOS sensor manufacturers have back illumination in production, except Canon.

better microlenses,

Canon seems to have caught up with other manufacturers with its latest sensors. The small pixel ones still lag, due to the rather coarse process geometry that Canon is using.

video capability (I don't care much about),

Shame, that is what Canon is really good at.

on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors,

along with it seems everyone else.

and they've simply waited longer to put those improvements into play in higher resolution chips. They have created new production lines for G1 X chips, 6D, 5D Mark III, EOS M,

All those are made in the existing fabrication facilities. Chip manufacture is a batch (wafer by wafer) process, not a production line one, so all their sensors share the same two fabrication plants.

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse.

Could you please post some evidence that as pixel counts increased 'the noise got worse and worse' - I have seen nothing to support that, and I collect more information about sensor performance than most. Maybe I've missed something here, so I'd be interested in you posting some hard evidence that separated this statement from a sweeping and mostly false generalisation.

It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way.

I'd be interested in knowing why it seemed that way. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that DSLR's were getting noisier as pixel counts increased. For instance, from DxO:

"Seemed" being the operative word. If it didn't seem that way to you, goody. There's no need for a scientific paper here. With the D30, D60, 10D, 20D, even 30D we saw every generation improve noise, DR, and increase pixel count which was awesome (even in Nikons, etc.). Then things did start leveling off. The graph you've shown below just shows they could increase pixel count with very small improvements in noise. The D5000 was 2009 and I'm talking about trends starting in 2000.

DSLR's weren't make the leaps they had been making and consumer P&S's were indeed becoming noisy for the sake of increased pixel count (find the measurements for cameras several years old if you can....tests weren't very DxO-esque back then, but DPReview did some good noise tests minus the pretty graphs). I was pointing out two trends and saying that there was reason to think the DSLR market might go the same way as the consumer market.

Three generations of camera, going from 12 through 16 to 24 MP on the same size sensor. The noise performance has got better, not worse.

Slightly. Look at the jumps occuring back when DSLR's were first coming into their own. My context goes back about 9 years before your start point here.

Notice how many camera models over the last few years had fewer pixels than their previous iteration?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51007191 To quote "G6 7.1MP, G7 10MP, G9 12.1MP, G10 14.7MP, G11 10MP, G12 12MP, G15 12.1MP.....and these were some of the most modest increases." Many other cameras finally tended down before then trending back up when the technology allowed for similar noise and DR with higher real detail resolution to match higher pixel counts.

The manufacturers were starting to realize consumers were wising up and the Best Buy salesman couldn't simply say (as they very often did) "more megapixels means better image quality."

Or one could infer the the reduction in pixel count was a reaction to a perceived market desire for lower pixel density, driven in good part by this site, and the result was a loss in image quality.

You could also infer a lot of incorrect things if you so desired. Your one case doesn't disprove the overall trend.

It CAN mean better image quality, but lots of people were figuring out the lens, noise, dynamic range, zoom, and other important considerations for a camera.

Most of those things are actually improved by higher pixel density. The MTF delivered by a lens is higher with more pixels behind it, increasing pixel count by decreasing pixel size generally increases dynamic range, as above it has little if any effect on noise and it provides more capability for 'digital zoom'.

"...CAN..." A crappy lens still makes a crappy picture.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

I disagree. Canon has been developing larger pixels on a chip while maintaing the same megapixel count (back-illuminated CMOS),

Two points about this. Firstly, back illuminated CMOS does not make pixels larger. Its advantages are about increasing the speed of the microlenses, and thus getting more light to the sensor. Secondly, Canon does not yet produce back-illuminated sensors. It has some in its cameras, but they are all sourced by sony, which is already onto the next thing, stacked back illuminated sonsors. All the major CMOS sensor manufacturers have back illumination in production, except Canon.

And they have filed patents indicating that they are working on their own in-house BI-CMOS. And they are working on shrinking the circuitry to increase pixel size. Excuse my lack of clarity, I was typing in a hurry.

better microlenses,

Canon seems to have caught up with other manufacturers with its latest sensors. The small pixel ones still lag, due to the rather coarse process geometry that Canon is using.

video capability (I don't care much about),

Shame, that is what Canon is really good at.

You just want to argue.

on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors,

along with it seems everyone else.

Yeah. So what's your point?

and they've simply waited longer to put those improvements into play in higher resolution chips. They have created new production lines for G1 X chips, 6D, 5D Mark III, EOS M,

All those are made in the existing fabrication facilities. Chip manufacture is a batch (wafer by wafer) process, not a production line one, so all their sensors share the same two fabrication plants.

Yes, I know. Again, my context was going back further than just those cameras.

Your main point is usually clarifying things that others understood. Your other main point is, when some does happen to be right, being MORE right than them. Please stop responding to me when I'm not talking to you. Your pedantic, condescending attitude is offputting. I won't respond any further to you.

Question is will you be quiet now or lay on more condescension mixed with some righteous indignation to prove my point?

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse.

Could you please post some evidence that as pixel counts increased 'the noise got worse and worse' - I have seen nothing to support that, and I collect more information about sensor performance than most. Maybe I've missed something here, so I'd be interested in you posting some hard evidence that separated this statement from a sweeping and mostly false generalisation.

It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way.

I'd be interested in knowing why it seemed that way. Again, I haven't seen any evidence that DSLR's were getting noisier as pixel counts increased. For instance, from DxO:

"Seemed" being the operative word. If it didn't seem that way to you, goody.

It seemed that way to you, then. No evidence, but it seemed like that. I think tehre is good evidence that it wasn't like that.

Three generations of camera, going from 12 through 16 to 24 MP on the same size sensor. The noise performance has got better, not worse.

Slightly. Look at the jumps occuring back when DSLR's were first coming into their own. My context goes back about 9 years before your start point here.

That's not surprising. The improvement in noise is brought about by improvements in quantum efficiency.It's gone from around 25% for the 5D to about 50% for the Mark II. That is a stop gain. All the time pixel density was being increased.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51007191 To quote "G6 7.1MP, G7 10MP, G9 12.1MP, G10 14.7MP, G11 10MP, G12 12MP, G15 12.1MP.....and these were some of the most modest increases." Many other cameras finally tended down before then trending back up when the technology allowed for similar noise and DR with higher real detail resolution to match higher pixel counts.

Quoting yourself. All you are doing is stating your opinion again. At least I quoted someone else's opinion, on the basis of undertaking reviews.

The manufacturers were starting to realize consumers were wising up and the Best Buy salesman couldn't simply say (as they very often did) "more megapixels means better image quality."

Or one could infer the the reduction in pixel count was a reaction to a perceived market desire for lower pixel density, driven in good part by this site, and the result was a loss in image quality.

You could also infer a lot of incorrect things if you so desired. Your one case doesn't disprove the overall trend.

There is no reason to suspect that my inference is any more or less accurate than yours. The truth is that you have no information on what the manufacturers were starting to realise. You are just staing your speculation on what they were doing. Unless of course you can produce some evidence from the manufacturers on what they were thinking.

It CAN mean better image quality, but lots of people were figuring out the lens, noise, dynamic range, zoom, and other important considerations for a camera.

Most of those things are actually improved by higher pixel density. The MTF delivered by a lens is higher with more pixels behind it, increasing pixel count by decreasing pixel size generally increases dynamic range, as above it has little if any effect on noise and it provides more capability for 'digital zoom'.

"...CAN..." A crappy lens still makes a crappy picture.

But a better one with more pixels behind it.

Watching Canon's slow to non-existence progress in sensor design for the past few years you might conclude that progress has reached a plateau. I still think we will see some substantial improvements in the next few years. I am inclined to believe that camera manufacturing is overdue for some competition. Canon and Nikon seem like two peas in the same pod. Let us hope that China or some other country will enter the game and get competition moving. It is time to see the end of the phony megabuck pricing for cameras, lenses and accessories.

I disagree. Canon has been developing larger pixels on a chip while maintaing the same megapixel count (back-illuminated CMOS),

Two points about this. Firstly, back illuminated CMOS does not make pixels larger. Its advantages are about increasing the speed of the microlenses, and thus getting more light to the sensor. Secondly, Canon does not yet produce back-illuminated sensors. It has some in its cameras, but they are all sourced by sony, which is already onto the next thing, stacked back illuminated sonsors. All the major CMOS sensor manufacturers have back illumination in production, except Canon.

And they have filed patents indicating that they are working on their own in-house BI-CMOS.

Certainly, but they haven't brought it to market.

video capability (I don't care much about),

Shame, that is what Canon is really good at.

You just want to argue.

No, I just thought it rather ironic that the one thing Canon is doing really well with respect to sensors, you don't care much about.

on-chip Phase Detect AF sensors,

along with it seems everyone else.

Yeah. So what's your point?

So the point is that Canon is doing just a bit less than it needs to do to keep pace with everyone else, unless of course we see a big step forward with the next round of cameras.

and they've simply waited longer to put those improvements into play in higher resolution chips. They have created new production lines for G1 X chips, 6D, 5D Mark III, EOS M,

All those are made in the existing fabrication facilities. Chip manufacture is a batch (wafer by wafer) process, not a production line one, so all their sensors share the same two fabrication plants.

Yes, I know. Again, my context was going back further than just those cameras.

Your main point is usually clarifying things that others understood. Your other main point is, when some does happen to be right, being MORE right than them. Please stop responding to me when I'm not talking to you.

These are public forums. If you want a private conversation with someone, use a private email.

Your pedantic, condescending attitude is offputting. I won't respond any further to you.

That's your privilege, but I'll keep on responding to your posts where I think there is something to say.

Question is will you be quiet now or lay on more condescension mixed with some righteous indignation to prove my point?

The reason many of us refer to them as "war" is similar to the reason there was an HD format "war" between HD DVD and Blu Ray around the same time. There were two ways of thinking and they were like the old saying "there are only two kinds of people in this world" because there were very few people who were on the fence about the issue of more pixels versus better pixels. For a long time improvement came in the form of more pixels. There were very tiny technological advances in the pixels themselves but big manufacturing advances in getting more pixels on a chip. People wanted higher resolutions, but we also really, really wanted better image quality in the form of lower noise/higher useful ISO's (not to mention better dynamic range).

If your argument is that the quest for smaller pixels led to less investment into improving QE, saturation capacity and read noise, you might have a point. But then some of the same underlying technology improvements improved both pixel count and the signal quality.

A lot of companies were making huge jumps in pixel count but the noise got worse and worse.

Could you give us some examples? Because I don't remember any but then I did not follow things as closely ten years ago.

It seemed like DSLR's were heading the same way. Notice how many camera models over the last few years had fewer pixels than their previous iteration?

Latest in-depth reviews

After a rare Seattle snowstorm finally subsided, DPReview editor Jeff Keller was able to escape the snow and spend some time with the impressive Fujifilm X-T30, a camera that offers a lot of bang for the buck.

The EF-M 32mm F1.4 is a welcome addition to Canon's APS-C mirrorless lens lineup. It's a good performer all-around and enjoyable to use on the EOS M50, and we hope to see more like it introduced to the EF-M range.

We don't often get excited about $900 cameras, but the Fujifilm X-T30 has really impressed us thus far. Find out what's new, what it's like to use and how it compares to its peers in our review in progress.

The S1 and S1R are Panasonic's first full-frame mirrorless cameras so there's a plenty to talk about. We've taken a look at the design and features of both cameras and have some initial impressions, as well.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.